When did UK governments lose their way?

prior to the Falklands was Argentina were planning to invade
I don’t understand this part of your post.

Every time I think of the Falklands War. I think of Simon Weston.
I think, as you probably do too, that war is appalling.
I have no idea whether MT could have prevented it or how she could have prevented it.
I think the only thing that made it acceptable to the media was that we won.

I think Iraq will haunt him forever and I’m pretty sure he regrets it now. But I still believe that, at the time he thought he was doing it for the right reasons. Whereas with Thatcher, I found an old newspaper article saying that, prior to the Falklands was Argentina were planning to invade and I feel that she could have prevented to war but didn’t.

MayBee70 I did, but it didn’t alter my opinion that he saw it as an opportunity to boost his image.
I thought that he made mistakes in his planning for the war in Iraq and as I recollect, he admitted them and apologised for those errors later.

Mollygo

My only concern with Blair and Iraq was that he was trying to achieve the same boost that winning the Falklands War did for MT.

Outside that, for me he wasn’t a good PM because he left us poorer than we had been at the end of the Thatcher era. And as for Gordon Brown. Those two heralded the start of a downward trend for us personally, but I’ll happily admit that nothing the Conservatives have done since has improved things for us.

Have you listened to the podcast? If so why on earth do you think that Blair used the Iraq war to get votes?

My only concern with Blair and Iraq was that he was trying to achieve the same boost that winning the Falklands War did for MT.

Outside that, for me he wasn’t a good PM because he left us poorer than we had been at the end of the Thatcher era. And as for Gordon Brown. Those two heralded the start of a downward trend for us personally, but I’ll happily admit that nothing the Conservatives have done since has improved things for us.

Lovetopaint037

I will be shouted down because of the Iraq war but I believe that Tony Blair gave us the best government in recent years. Hospital waiting times were massively reduced and new ones built although the contracts could have been better. He was a great speaker and highly intelligent. He settled Ireland into peace and overall this country had prestige which it sadly lacks now.

No shouting down from me. I agree. Yet again can I mention The Rest is Politics podcast in which Alastair Campbell explains what led to the Iraq decision. My daughter loved teaching at the time because she said Blair really did put money into education. And people seem to ignore the threat to peace in Ireland because of the Conservatives. It’s strange the way that the electorate choose to forget so many things but remember others. There is talk of Sunak promising more financial help with child care in a bid to win the next election and yet they promised that in a previous manifesto but didn’t implement it ( I considered voting for them because of it so it sticks in my mind).

Lovetopaint037

I will be shouted down because of the Iraq war but I believe that Tony Blair gave us the best government in recent years. Hospital waiting times were massively reduced and new ones built although the contracts could have been better. He was a great speaker and highly intelligent. He settled Ireland into peace and overall this country had prestige which it sadly lacks now.

You're quite right. People forget those achievements and just remember the Iraq War. We should remember both.

Mamie

Casdon

ronib

Mamie a minority then of civil servants have been given quite good redundancy payments in the past. I think there’s now a limit on the amount on the table.

It’s changed now. Less favourable pensions, with a higher eligibility age, and lower redundancy lump sums make redundancy an unattractive option for public servants.

Yes it has, but you still hang on to the previous benefits you had accrued before the changes, don't you?

Only if you were a defined age before the changes to schemes were made. The theory is that if you are below 50 (usually 50) before the changed scheme comes into being then you have enough working years left to make up the shortfall in your pension compared with the new scheme.
www.civilservicepensionscheme.org.uk/your-pension/2015-remedy/

I will be shouted down because of the Iraq war but I believe that Tony Blair gave us the best government in recent years. Hospital waiting times were massively reduced and new ones built although the contracts could have been better. He was a great speaker and highly intelligent. He settled Ireland into peace and overall this country had prestige which it sadly lacks now.

MaisieD Our Elective Di tatorship. Take a look at our supposed parliamentary democracy. See how power is funelled from election results declared, from parliament to Cabinet to PM, who own power is enhanced by the use of royal perogative and privy council. That power is left unchecked by the absence of a codified constitution, effective upper house or independent head of state. The centralisation of power for years prompted concerns of an elective dictatorship is what marks out the difference between a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy. That we are the latter and not the former is the source of a lot of weakness in the UK constitution.

Casdon

ronib

Mamie a minority then of civil servants have been given quite good redundancy payments in the past. I think there’s now a limit on the amount on the table.

It’s changed now. Less favourable pensions, with a higher eligibility age, and lower redundancy lump sums make redundancy an unattractive option for public servants.

Yes it has, but you still hang on to the previous benefits you had accrued before the changes, don't you?

ronib

Mamie a minority then of civil servants have been given quite good redundancy payments in the past. I think there’s now a limit on the amount on the table.

It’s changed now. Less favourable pensions, with a higher eligibility age, and lower redundancy lump sums make redundancy an unattractive option for public servants.

ronib

Mamie a minority then of civil servants have been given quite good redundancy payments in the past. I think there’s now a limit on the amount on the table.

Oh yes, there were always people who opted for redundancy, but you would expect that wouldn't you? That has always been the trade-off in public service. Lower pay with better conditions of service.

Mamie a minority then of civil servants have been given quite good redundancy payments in the past. I think there’s now a limit on the amount on the table.

Dinahmo

ronib

Dinahmo redundancy also happens in the Civil Service when a department or part of one is closed down.

Exactly - when they want to reduce the workforce.

Not sure that is necessarily true. My DD was involved in several Machinery of Government changes when Departments got closed, merged or renamed. Most people just moved to a similar job in a different department or the same job in a renamed department.

I think manifestos have had their day.

I used to think the Swiss idea was a bit bonkers, but what we and some other countries have is a lot worse now, now that higher ups seem to do as they please.

“OTOH, if a government is elected on a certain manifesto, then starts enacting things that aren't on their manifesto; changing some constitutional arrangements, perhaps, or over riding the actual legislative body (as the government is currently trying to do) how do 'the people' stop them if they only have a voice once every 4 or 5 years?”

Perhaps we should do as the Swiss do and have a referendum vote on any important decision

Grany

Without a written constitution it's impossible to entrench anything in British law. Anything Paliament does Parliament can undo. If Labour introduces new rights in next Parliament, a future government can take them away. So written constitution and elected Head of State.

Something or someone has to be sovereign, Grany. It is either Parliament, elected representatives of the citizens of the country, or it is a Dictator (your 'elected head of state'). Which is going to best represent the diverse needs and desires of the electorate?

I prefer to think that Parliament, imperfect though it is, is the correct sovereign element. And a parliament without the power to change the law is not an effective instrument of governance.

I'm sorry, but I think those ideas, if they reflect the thought of Republicans, are pie in the sky. And dangerous. Systems which are subject to sudden change are volatile and vulnerable.

Written constitutions guarantee nothing at all. Even they can be changed and amended.

1979

This explains everything in detail

Without a written constitution it's impossible to entrench anything in British law. Anything Paliament does Parliament can undo. If Labour introduces new rights in next Parliament, a future government can take them away. So written constitution and elected Head of State.

Dinahmo or when another government department wishes to take over the work of another.

ronib

Dinahmo redundancy also happens in the Civil Service when a department or part of one is closed down.

Exactly - when they want to reduce the workforce.

After you MaizieD

Oh, do stop wittering, ronib

Why don't you go and take that AQA course on the British constitution.